On Thursday 16 November 2006 17:34 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:28:58 +0000, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>
>> "He urged the government to look at establishing "back door" ways of
>> getting around encryption"
>>
>> "The Home Office later told the BBC News website it is in talks with
>> Microsoft"
>
> They can say they're "in talks" all they want. It doesn't mean it's
> happening or happened.
Of course not, but it's interesting, don't you think?
I can understand the Home Office *denying* that it was in talks on this
subject (whether it was or not), but why would it say that it *was* if it
was not?
Also, my recollection is that later, MS said that they had *refused* to do
any such thing. Again, I would expect them to say that whether they had or
had not....
Whatever, do you not find it interesting that the Home Office should talk to
MS on the subject? To even talk implies to me that they considered it
possible to incorporate the facility undetected, and AFAIR MS didn't say
that it was "impossible to get away with it", or anything like that, just
that they had declined to do it...
|
|
